Template talk:EvalDecks/doc
The rule says that when writing a variation of a deck, we should use the following format: "Replace X with Y, A with B, and D with C" I think that this format is easier to read: "Replace X, A and D with Y, B and C" (i.e. only use 1 "with") Especially in this case: "Replace X, A, D with Y, B(2)" For example: (Original format) Replace Sundering Ogre with Support Carrier, Asylum with Blood Wall, and Nimbus with Blood Wall. (Suggested format) Replace Sundering Ogre, Asylum and Nimbus with Support Carrier and Blood Wall(2). 04:27, March 19, 2012 (UTC) *Where it can become confusing is when replacing specific cards in a "Cards played in order" deck; then it must be "Replace X with Y, A with B", etc. So, rather than have multiple wording formats, keeping one allows for a more consistent appearance across different scenarios. Slivicon 06:53, March 19, 2012 (UTC) Maximum number of rows The maximum number of rows is 10. Auto decks for Raids are divided by tier, and Jotun Tier 2, at least, already has 10 entries. http://warmetal.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrant/Raids/Jotun,_Sacred_Guardian/Strategy/Auto If we follow the rule of listing the deck percentages in decreasing order of win percentage, then the implication is that we would need to delete the lowest entry currently on the table. But, this is only implicit: I don't see anything explicit in this template about how to deal with that type of situation. On the one hand, it seems useless to have more than 10 versions of a deck. On the other hand, especially because raids are divided by Tier and not by concept, deleting a low ranking deck might be a loss. First, that 11th deck might be the only deck that some players have the cards for. Second, that 11th deck might inspire the creation of a higher ranking deck. Third, when new cards come out, the addition of one new card in the 11th deck might become the new best deck. If we delete the 11th deck, we might lose valuable information. But back to the other hand, deleting the 11th deck only might cause us to lose valuable information and we probably don't need 80 different Tier 2 Jotun decks. I don't have a great solution. The only thing I can think of is to divide Raid decks into concepts and mark them by Tier. For example, the Tier 2 Imperial Purger decks have at least two distinct concepts: Sundering Ogre spam and Bolide Walker/Support Carrier. http://warmetal.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrant/Raids/Imperial_Purger/Strategy/Auto Perhaps we should could divide those different concepts into two different tables and mark both tables as Tier 2. I don't yet know enough about this wiki's general design and information architecture to have much of an opinion about the solution. Hunterhogan 18:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC) *It looks to me like a lot (if not all) of the rows in that Auto Tier 2 ED template for Jotun are Tier 2 only because of Dracorex. So, this problem of 10 rows not being enough may only prove to be a problem because of the popularity of Dracorex and the fact that it is a Tier 2 card. I'm not sure what a solution would be, but I still think the approved Project:Projects/Tyrant/Raids (if memory serves; I wrote it but I have written a lot and will have to review) wanting to limit to 5 tiers, 10 decks per tier (plus the displayed deck) = 55 possible decks, plus another 55 for manual = 110 possible decks for a raid should be more than enough. If it wasn't for Dracorex, Tier 2 wouldn't be full. The project aims to create new templates just for Raids, though, so a special fork of may be in order. However, a fundamental shift from the project would mean putting it back into proposal status for additional review and discussion. As it is, it's such a big project that even though it's approved, it is slow going, both because there are other projects ongoing but also because it is really suggesting a total revamp of raid pages (new templates, tabbed views, new rules, etc.) Slivicon 19:48, March 25, 2012 (UTC) *Also, I shouldn't think anyone would have a problem with adding overflow decks to instances of to the associated talk page due to the Dracorex issue, so that these decks aren't lost, but also keeps the article from becoming endless...Slivicon 19:53, March 25, 2012 (UTC)